Kirkpatrick v. Ford

Citations

• 29 S.C.L. 110

Syllabus

<p>1. The rule to compel the payment of money collected by the Sheriff to an execution, lies at the instance of the plaintiff in execution, or his representative.</p> <p>2. Where money was deposited with the Sheriff, to be applied in payment of executions against a certain defendant, on his compliance with certain conditions, the Sheriff, supposing the defendant would comply with them, paid the money to the plaintiffs’ attorney, in the case entitled to it, on a promise to refund in case the conditions were not complied with, which not being done, the money was refunded and restored to the person who had made the deposit. Under these circumstances, the deposit so made with the Sheriff, did not operate as a satisfaction pro tanto.</p> <p>3. Where the amount of several executions against a defendant were paid to the sheriff by a third person, upon the understanding that they were to be assigned to him, which was done by the plaintiff’s attornies, it was held that, although the assignments did not have the effect of barring the plaintiffs from setting up a claim to the judgments, as an attorney cannot assign a judgment, yet if they did not set up any claim, creditors could not, and that the payments so made were no satisfaction of the executions.</p>